‘US against elections in Syria fearing Assad might win’

A Free Syrian Army fighter mans an anti-aircraft gun on the back of a pick-up truck during clashes with forces loyal to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad in Sheikh Najjar in Aleppo May 13, 2014. (Reuters / Hosam Katan) / Reuters

The victory by Assad in Syria’s elections will give him additional democratic, electorally-bestowed legitimacy and that is the real reason why the US government doesn't want an elected government, geopolitical analyst Brian Becker told RT.

RT:President Obama has just met with the
Syrian opposition leader Ahmad Jarbar, but won't talk to the
official government representatives or President Assad. Why is
that?

Brian Becker: I think it’s an indication that
the Obama Administration in spite of the fact that its policy has
completely failed, in spite of the fact that its policy of
funding, of fueling and arming the armed opposition to the Assad
government with the idea that it would invariably succeed in
overthrowing the Assad government, in spite of those set-backs to
its policies, it’s hanging tough so to speak, showing that it is
bestowing the legitimacy or power of the US with the armed
opposition.

In spite of the fact that the armed up opposition isn’t winning
on the battlefield and as we can see does not have the popular
base of support necessary to oust the Assad government, so they
are just continuing with the same script. Syrian people are the
ones who pay this terrible price in blood and treasure as the
bleeding goes on. I think it is wrong.

RT:The statement after their meeting in the
White House says there's no future for Assad in Syria, meaning he
has to go, but the solution has to be political. How's that
possible?

BB: You cannot really have a negotiation with
the party that you say has no future in the role of Syria,
especially when it is the sovereign government of Syria. This is
just a complete misnomer, it is an oxymoron. If the US is serious
about coming up with a political settlement, with a negotiated
solution, the thing that the Syrian people want, the thing that
the Syrian society needs so badly, then they cannot say in
advance that there is no future for the Assad government.

And by the way, who are they? Who is the US government to
determine which governments leave and which governments fall as
if the US has some universal prerogative to determine destiny of
other countries? They just do not have those rights. Certainly
they do not have the legal right for it.

RT:Why is Washington saying the
presidential election should be postponed, if it wants Assad to
leave office?

BB: Because the real fear there, the fear of the
Obama Administration is that if the elections go forward, even
though we know there is considerable opposition of the Assad
government, we also know there is a considerable support of the
Assad government, popular support. In election which happens in
the time of civil war, as the American government had an election
in 1864 in the middle of the US civil war, an election that
Abraham Lincoln won. If it were to take place and Assad were to
win, that would give additional democratic, electorally-bestowed
legitimacy to the Assad government. That is the real reason and
the US government does not want an elected government as they
think Assad will win the elections.

RT:In his meeting with the Syrian rebels,
The US Secretary of State John Kerry allegedly told them they've
wasted a year in the fight against Assad. He was critical of the
way the supply of aid and weapons to the opposition was handled.
What do you make of that?

BB: John Kerry has no right, he is interfering.
Can you imagine if another country decided “Oh, you know,
there should be more coordinated armed opposition groups inside
the US”? The US would recognize it to be completely outside
of the political rights and outside the boundaries of
international law. But John Kerry, because of the arrogance of
power, feels he can speak like this.

John Kerry, I think personally, is frustrated because it was his
policy that fueled the civil war. He wanted the bombing campaign
last August and September. Obama wisely stepped back and took the
lifeline that Russia threw them for a negotiated settlement to
get rid of Syrian chemical weapons. John Kerry is frustrated
because he is hard-liner, he is neo-conservative in Syria, in
Ukraine and all these hotspots, doing what the neo-conservatives
have done for the last decade, which is carrying out one reckless
venture after another and that has not helped the US.

RT:France believes Assad is hiding part of
its chemical arsenal and continues to use it secretly. Is there
any evidence for that?

BB: They do not offer any evidence. They have
just as little evidence that is no evidence that Kerry and
company tried to offer last August and September. They could
provide none when there was a real international scrutiny
demanding evidence. They just say it is suggested that chlorine
tanks were used. Why would the Assad government go back and use
chemical weapons right now, when of course that would be the one
thing that would undo the international settlement that
prohibited foreign Western powers from bombing the country.

He has no real interest in doing this. It just does not make
sense. But let us not forget, France is still angry because they
are the old colonizers in Syria. They do not want the independent
government in Syria. They think Syria should belong to them, to
the French empire. They are still living in those days.

‘French frustrated too'

RT:The French foreign minister also said he
regrets the decision not to carry out airstrikes against the
Syrian government, which they believe used chemical weapons. As
far as we know, the UN report never said the government was the
one to use it...What’s your take on that?

BB: They are just making things up as they go
along. This is the propaganda script. France is the ex-colonizer
of Syria, along with the US it represents the most militaristic
interventionist wing of the Western military powers. And the
French are frustrated because they too think they are along with
the US should be able to dictate as they used to dictate the
terms of who leaves, who dies, who rules in Syria. They have
their mentality of the former colonizer. They are frustrated
right now because Assad is not being defeated and so they are
frustrated, they are making stories up to delegitimize the
government again because they do not want the elections go
forward.

RT:Now that the UN envoy for Syria has
resigned, what could happen to the peace talks?

BB: He said that the international community was
hopelessly divided which meant that Russia and China had failed
to acquiesce to the demands of the Western powers, and
particularly the US, France and Britain, to carry out the ouster
of the legitimate sovereign government in Syria. He recognizes
that the Syrian government does not stand alone and is not going
to fall. They have international allies, not because the Russians
or the Chinese are following the script from Assad’s playback,
but because they believe that the US and Western powers do not
have the right to militarily intervene over and over again and
topple sovereign governments. He sees negotiations are hopeless
because the US side and the US-backed rebels really do not want
to negotiate.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.